PS

[Dale Eastman]

PS Wrote:
What gives you liberty is not having any government at all, so that the next time someone gathers an army, they can take you over and impose whatever kind of authority they what.

So tell me, please, what kind of authority do we have now?

Attributed to Voltaire, "If you wish to communicate first define your terms."

I define authority as the right to rule others.

Whence comes this (alleged) authority?

[Dale Eastman]

There is no right to rule others.

We rule ourselves. That was the entire point of classical liberalism.

But, if you reject self-rule, and the institutions to enforce it, you will be ruled by others, whether they have that right or not.

The most famous case of anarchy promoted by proponents is Iceland, which briefly had an anarchic society with a polycentric legal system.

“So it IS possible”, they say.

“And how did it end?”

“Stupid statists took them over and ruled them!” *stomps foot*

Yep.
That’s WHY we establish a government to rule ourselves.

In the most literal sense of the word, all classically liberal governments are anarchies: that is, “without rulers”.
We govern ourselves, and are not ruled at all.

➽ We govern ourselves, and are not ruled at all.

I will assume you actually believe what you wrote, Because... Maybe you do.

Who, specifically, is this "We"?

I hereby, specifically refute that you and I are "We".
In the context of your statement about this alleged "We", I challenge your reification of the concept of "We".

⚠ "Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory"." ⛔

[Dale Eastman]

“we” is literally in the first sentence of the Constitution.

➽ “we” is literally in the first sentence of the Constitution.

I apologize for typing my question too fast for you. I'll do it slower this time:
W - h - o,
s - p - e - c - i - f - i - c - a - l - l - y,
i - s
t - h - i - s
"W - e"?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, did you bother to read the Constitution?

It answers that question.

Here, since you evidently don’t have the skill to Google a copy of the Constitution, I’ll explain.

It’s we “the people”, which means all of us.

The Constitution goes on to establish a representative government.

Do I need to explain what “representative” means, too?

➽ Dale, did you bother to read the Constitution?

More so than you will know. Did you bother to read Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON?

➽ It’s we “the people”, which means all of us.

I understand that you believe your opinion is truth. However, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. An assertion without proof may be refuted without proof. You are wrong.

Did you bother to learn what reification is?

The writer of the preamble to the CONstitution presumed to speak for me as if I am part of that specific we 170 years before I was born. Please provide your evidence that I authorized the CONstitution's writers to speak for me.

➽ The Constitution goes on to establish a representative government.
Do I need to explain what “representative” means, too?

One topic at a time.

Third inquiry:
Who, specifically, is this "We"?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, so you oppose the Constitution.

Got it.

No, the authors did not “presume to speak for you.”

They established an agnostic government in which all participate.

➽ No, the authors did not “presume to speak for you.”

Thank you for admitting I am NOT part of that "We".

➽ They established an agnostic government in which all participate.

That's like saying slave owners established a government in which all participate.
The masters ruled the slaves and all participated.

What, specifically, do you mean by "government"?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, no, it’s not like saying that at all.

It’s clear you’re irrational, so I won’t bother to respond any further.

You calling me irrational because I won't accept your edicts as truth. I find that very sad and very funny at the same time.

You "won't bother to respond any further" is something I am quite used to seeing from cowards. Cowards that don't like my questions exposing their BullShit as the BullShit it is. Cowards suffering from the Cognitive Dissonance my questions trigger.

➽ We govern ourselves, and are not ruled at all.

To govern is to control. To rule is to control.
You contradicted yourself in one sentence, and you call me irrational.

➽ That’s WHY we establish a government to rule ourselves.

"We [...] are not ruled at all." "We establish a government to rule ourselves."
You contradicted yourself in two sentences, and you call me irrational.

➽ They established an agnostic government in which all participate.

Government: A system of control by rulers.
Slavery: A system of control by rulers.
Government: Where the rulers rule and the not-rulers obey.
In both cases, the rulers and the not-rulers are participating.
In both cases, this IS exactly the same.

With foreknowledge that you are invoking your fifth amendment right to refuse to incriminate yourself, I'll continue by using your previous proclamations already on the record as answers to the questions.

Fourth inquiry:
Who, specifically, is this "We"?

➽ “we” is literally in the first sentence of the Constitution.
➽ It’s we “the people”, which means all of us.

The "We" of "We the People" in the CONstitution is a collective of about, IIRC 4 million at that time.
A collective is NOT a single entity. Assuming and/or pretending otherwise is a error in thought on your part.

The writers of the CONstitution purport to be the voice of a collective of 4 million humans. This purported voice of 4 million is reified into, and treated as if, a singular entity. It is not a singular entity.

There is NO verifiable record of any of those 4 million humans specifically authorizing the writers of the CONstitution to write as the 4 million humans. Nor for the 320 million presently living, years after the 4 million have turned to dust.

Knowing full well that you can not provide verifiable proof that the individuals of either the collective of 4 million or the collective of 320 have specifically given authority for the writers of the CONstitution to act as their agents, I still demand you provide 4 million and 320 million verifiable proofs of the CONstitution 's writers authority to act as agents for every single one of the human collective erroneously called "We".

This purporting to speak for me was done 170 years before I was born. So I simply could NOT be a part of that collective of humans. Ergo: The writers simply could NOT be writing as if representing me.

Second inquiry:
What, specifically, do you mean by "government"?

Since you chose to ignore this question and since you did not leave enough clues in the record, I'll supply the answer.

Government is merely a reified mental construct, a concept treated as if it has physical existence treated no differently than Santa Claus. Government is an “artificial person.” Government is a “legal fiction.” Government, does not exist absent its constituent members, be they officers, employees, or elected officials.

Distilling the above: Government is merely men and women called government. If by some miracle, every single officer, employee, or elected official quit or resigned at the same time, Government would cease to exist.

Setting aside your failure to prove I am part of this "we", I will assume arguendo, that I am part of this "We."

I will also assume arguendo that your claim is true for the purpose of reductio ad absurdum.

➽ That’s WHY we establish a government to rule ourselves.

Better yet, since this "We" is a reification of a collective of many into an entity of one, "We" means "me" for the purpose of reductio ad absurdum.

That’s why I establish a government to rule myself.

So in this ruling of myself, I promulgate this rule to myself:

I am required to pay my legal fiction artificial person some money called taxes.
And elsewhere I have ruled that LEO's can use escalating force against me, up to and including killing me for refusing to obey myself if I resist being put in a cage as I have ruled to be done when I refuse to obey myself.

Didja ever think about this:

If it's consent of the governed, then why do those governing need men with guns to make those consenting obey?

synapticsparks⚿info/dialog/index.php?topic=901.0
Change ⚿ to . to fix the munged address.